As I have written about before on PolicyMic, SLAPPs (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) are damaging lawsuits that chill free speech and healthy debate by targeting those who speak out on issues of public interest. SLAPPs are used to silence and harass critics by forcing them to spend money to defend themselves against these baseless suits. Put simply, SLAPP filers don’t go to court to seek justice; rather, SLAPPS are intended to harm and intimidate those who disagree with them or their activities by draining the target’s financial resources.

Earlier this week, a lawsuit against Rachel Maddow was ruled a SLAPP by a Washington D.C. judge who ordered the SLAPP filer to pay Maddow $24,625.23 in attorney’s fees. The defamation suit against Maddow was filed by Bradlee Dean, an anti-LGBT preacher from Minnesota. Dean sued Maddow after she ran a story on The Rachel Maddow Show, where she aired a segment from Dean’s radio show where he said that Muslims were “more moral than even the American Christians” because they were “calling for the execution for homosexuals.” Luckily for Maddow, Washington D.C. enacted a strong anti-SLAPP law last year, which allowed her to bring a motion to have the case dismissed and her attorney’s fees awarded.

While Maddow and Walker may not be politically aligned, it would seem that their shared experience as targets of frivolous lawsuits would make them both appreciate the need for federal anti-SLAPP legislation. Both of these cases clearly illustrate the need for such legislation, which would further strengthen and protect the First Amendment rights of all Americans, regardless of party affiliation.